Existing law provides that in order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, it is the policy of the state to consider prevailing salaries and benefits prior to making salary recommendations. Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources, in order to provide comparability in pay, to take into consideration the salary and benefits of other jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California.

This bill would require the state to pay firefighters who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 8, employed by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, within 15% of the average salary for corresponding ranks in 20 listed California fire departments. The bill would require the state and the exclusive representative for State Bargaining Unit 8 to jointly survey annually and calculate the estimated average salaries for those fire departments. The bill would provide that when determining compensation for uniformed classifications of the department, it is the policy of the state to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdictions listed, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons. The bill would require any salary increase for firefighters under these provisions to be implemented through a memorandum of understanding, in accordance with specified procedures governing collective bargaining agreements. The bill would include related legislative findings.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1254

Author: Flora (R), et al.

Introduced: 2/16/23

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/22/23

AYES: Cortese, Wilk, Durazo, Laird, Smallwood-Cuevas

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/25/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: State employees: compensation: firefighters

SOURCE: CAL FIRE Local 2881
California Professional Firefighters

DIGEST:

This bill uses a formula that would pay the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Bargaining Unit (BU) 8 members within 15 percent of the average of the salary for corresponding ranks in 20 specified local fire departments instead of determining state firefighters’ pay through collective bargaining under the Dills Act as required by current law. Additionally, this bill would require the State and BU 8 to jointly survey annually and calculate the estimated average salaries of the 20 departments.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires CalHR to do the following: 1) establish and adjust salary ranges for each class of position, as specified, on the principle that the state shall pay like salaries for comparable duties and responsibilities; and 2) consider the prevailing rates for comparable service in other public employment and in private business in establishing or changing these ranges. (Government Code (GC) § 19826 (a))
2. Prohibits, however, CalHR from establishing, adjusting, or recommending a salary range for any employees represented by an exclusive representative, as specified. Instead, existing law requires CalHR to submit to the respective parties that are meeting and conferring over the salaries and to the Legislature, a report containing CalHR’s findings relating to the salaries of employees in comparable occupations in private industry and other governmental agencies at least six months before the end of an existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) or as otherwise specified. (GC § 19826 (b)-(c))
3. Requires the state to pay, as specified, sworn members of the California Highway Patrol who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 5 the estimated average total compensation for each corresponding rank for the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, San Diego Police Department, Oakland Police Department, and San Francisco Police Department. Total compensation shall include base salary, educational incentive pay, physical performance pay, longevity pay, and retirement contributions made by the employer on behalf of the employee. (GC § 19827)
4. Declares that it is the state’s policy to consider prevailing salaries and benefits prior to making salary recommendations in order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and requires CalHR to take into consideration the salary and benefits of other jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California in order to provide comparability in pay. (GC § 19827.3)

This bill:

1. Requires the state to pay rank-and-file BU 8 firefighters within 15% of the average salary for corresponding ranks in the following 20 California fire departments, as agreed to by state BU 8 and the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) in 2017: the cities of Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Corona, Escondido, Fullerton, Hayward, Milpitas, Ontario, Oxnard, Rialto, Roseville, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Monica, Stockton, and Torrance; the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department; the Novato Fire District; and, the counties of Los Angeles and Ventura.
2. Requires the state and BU 8’s exclusive representative to jointly survey and calculate the comparable departments’ estimated average salaries based on their projected average total salary as of July 1 of the year in which the parties conduct the survey.
3. Declares that, when determining compensation for CAL FIRE's uniformed classifications, it is the state’s policy to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdictions, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons.
4. Requires the state to implement any increase in salary for BU 8 firefighters resulting from this bill’s provisions through an MOU negotiated pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act (Chapter 10.3 (commencing with Section 3512) of Division 4 of Title 1).
5. Provides that if this bill’s provisions and an MOU conflict, the MOU shall control without further legislative action except that if the MOU’s provisions require the expenditure of funds, the provision shall not become effective unless approved by the Legislature and the annual Budget Act.
6. Makes related findings and declarations.

Comments

Need for this bill? According to the author, “CAL FIRE firefighters are overworked and severely underpaid compared to their counterparts in local agencies, working 72 hour workweek compared to 54 hour work weeks for local fire departments. This bill would allow state firefighters to have a reasonable, competitive salary.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

This bill would result in increased personnel costs to CAL FIRE to provide BU 8 firefighters with pay comparative to other local fire departments. The California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) estimates that the direct costs of this legislation would be $537 million ($330 million General Fund) upon implementation; annual ongoing costs would be $29 million to $100 million ($18 million to $61 million General Fund), contingent on the results of the salary survey.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/15/24)

CAL FIRE Local 2881 (co-source)

California Professional Firefighters (co-source)

California Attorneys Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/15/24)

None received.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to CAL FIRE Local 2881,

“An agreement was made in 2017 between Bargaining Unit 8 (CAL FIRE Local 2881) and CalHR. This bill codifies that agreement.”

According to the California Professional Firefighters,

“AB 1254 will ensure that the full-time professional firefighters of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection are paid a wage that is within 15 % of the average salary of similar ranks averaged from 20 fire departments across California. The cross section of departments enumerated in the legislation cover a wide variety of departments from small to large cities as well as county departments and fire districts. Given the size of CAL FIRE’s workforce and the geographic diversity of the communities they serve, this approach provides the clearest picture of firefighter compensation across California to ensure fair and competitive wages.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/25/23

AYES: Addis, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Aguiar-Curry, Mathis, Papan

Prepared by: Glenn Miles / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

8/18/24 8:46:08

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 1254 (Flora) - State employees: compensation: firefighters

Bill Summary:

AB 1254 would use a formula that would pay the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Bargaining Unit (BU) 8 members within 15 percent of the average of the salary for corresponding ranks in 20 specified local fire departments instead of determining state firefighters’ pay through collective bargaining under the Dills Act as required by current law. Additionally, the bill would require the State and BU 8 to jointly survey annually and calculate the estimated average salaries of the 20 departments.

Fiscal Impact:

This bill would result in increased personnel costs to CAL FIRE to provide BU 8 firefighters with pay comparative to other local fire departments. The California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) estimates that the direct costs of this legislation would be $537 million ($330 million General Fund) upon implementation; annual ongoing costs would be $29 million to $100 million ($18 million to $61 million General Fund), contingent on the results of the salary survey (See Staff Comments).

Background:

Current law requires CalHR, when determining compensation for state firefighters, to take into consideration the compensation provided by jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California.

On August 16, 2021, the California Department of Finance submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee a labor agreement between the administration and state BU 8. The MOU proposed a 2.5 percent general salary increase for all state BU 8 members, effective July 1, 2022; a 2.5 percent general salary increase effective January 1, 2023; and a 2 percent general salary increase effective July 1, 2023. These increases compound to 6.6 percent over the two years of the agreement. However, in its review of the state BU 8 MOU at the time, the Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that, when compared to firefighters at 20 local fire departments, BU 8 firefighters are compensated, on average, 24 percent less.

Proposed Law:

This bill would, among other things, do the following:

• Require the State to pay rank-and-file BU 8 firefighters within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks in the following 20 California fire departments, as agreed to by state BU 8 and CalHR in 2017: the cities of Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Corona, Escondido, Fullerton, Hayward, Milpitas, Ontario, Oxnard, Rialto, Roseville, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Monica, Stockton, and Torrance; the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department; the Novato Fire District; and, the counties of Los Angeles and Ventura.
• Require the state and BU 8’s exclusive representative to jointly survey and calculate the comparable departments’ estimated average salaries based on their projected average total salary as of July 1 of the year in which the parties conduct the survey.
• Declare that, when determining compensation for CAL FIRE's uniformed classifications, it is the state’s policy to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdictions, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons.
• Require the State to implement any increase in salary for BU 8 firefighters resulting from this bill’s provisions through an MOU negotiated pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act..
• Provide that if this bill’s provisions and an MOU conflict, the MOU shall control without further legislative action except that if the MOU’s provisions require the expenditure of funds, the provision shall not become effective unless approved by the Legislature and the annual Budget Act.

Related Legislation:

AB 1677 (McKinnor) would require the University of California (UC) at Berkeley Labor Center (UCB Labor Center) to undertake a study of the existing salary structure and provide recommendations for alternative models, if applicable, as applied to rank-and-file scientists in State Bargaining Unit 10 (BU 10), among other provisions. The bill is currently pending in this Committee.

Staff Comments:

CalHR notes that, while the bill prescribes that any increase in salary for BU 8 firefighters resulting from its provisions must be implemented through an MOU, it would result in increased personnel costs by statutorily mandating the specified increase.

CalHR’s fiscal estimate of the bill assumes increases for all rank-and-file members of BU 8. Furthermore, the department notes that, while the bill language asserts the State provide any increase to “rank-and-file” members, current law (Government Code 19849.18) requires “supervisors of state employees represented by BU 5,6, or 8 to receive salary and benefits changes that are at least generally equivalent to the salary and benefits granted to employees they supervise. For purposes of this section, “salary” means base pay and shall not be construed to include such forms of compensation as overtime. The benefit package shall be the economic equivalent, but the benefits need not be identical. The determination of the specific benefits that supervisors of state employees represented by State Bargaining Unit 5, 6, or 8 shall receive shall be made through a meet and confer process as defined in Section 3533.”

Additionally, to the extent that passage of this bill results in further legislation from other employee BUs seeking the same benefit for their members, this bill could result in a significant cost pressure.

Finally, Cal HR notes that formulas provide significant pay raises beyond the state’s control. Historically, during times when the budget does cannot afford the state to pay a formulated pay raise, an alternative has been negotiated. Often the alternative has resulted in other benefits, such as enhanced health benefits, which may have resulted in a lesser cost at the time but resulted in more of a cost in the long term.

CAL FIRE notes that local governments and counties that contract with CAL FIRE could also have a fiscal impact from this bill if it is determined that salary increases would be required.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT

Senator Dave Cortese, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 1254 Hearing Date: June 22, 2023

SUBJECT: State employees: compensation: firefighters.

KEY ISSUE

Should the state use a formula that would pay CAL FIRE Bargaining Unit (BU) 8 members within 15% of the average of the salary for corresponding ranks in 20 specified local fire departments instead of determining state firefighters’ pay through collective bargaining under the Dills Act as required by current law?

Should the state and BU 8’s union jointly survey annually and calculate the estimated average salaries of the 20 departments?

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Requires CalHR to do the following: 1) establish and adjust salary ranges for each class of position, as specified, on the principle that the state shall pay like salaries for comparable duties and responsibilities; and 2) consider the prevailing rates for comparable service in other public employment and in private business in establishing or changing these ranges. (Government Code (GC) § 19826 (a))
2. Prohibits, however, CalHR from establishing, adjusting, or recommending a salary range for any employees represented by an exclusive representative, as specified. Instead, existing law requires CalHR to submit to the respective parties that are meeting and conferring over the salaries and to the Legislature, a report containing CalHR’s findings relating to the salaries of employees in comparable occupations in private industry and other governmental agencies at least six months before the end of an existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) or as otherwise specified. (GC § 19826 (b)-(c))
3. Requires the state to pay, as specified, sworn members of the California Highway Patrol who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 5 the estimated average total compensation for each corresponding rank for the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, San Diego Police Department, Oakland Police Department, and San Francisco Police Department. Total compensation shall include base salary, educational incentive pay, physical performance pay, longevity pay, and retirement contributions made by the employer on behalf of the employee. (GC § 19827)
4. Declares that it is the state’s policy to consider prevailing salaries and benefits prior to making salary recommendations in order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and requires CalHR to take into consideration the salary and benefits of other jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California in order to provide comparability in pay. (GC § 19827.3)

This bill:

1. Requires the state to pay rank-and-file BU 8 firefighters within 15% of the average salary for corresponding ranks in the following 20 California fire departments, as agreed to by state BU 8 and the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) in 2017: the cities of Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Corona, Escondido, Fullerton, Hayward, Milpitas, Ontario, Oxnard, Rialto, Roseville, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Monica, Stockton, and Torrance; the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department; the Novato Fire District; and, the counties of Los Angeles and Ventura.
2. Requires the state and BU 8’s exclusive representative to jointly survey and calculate the comparable departments’ estimated average salaries based on their projected average total salary as of July 1 of the year in which the parties conduct the survey.
3. Declares that, when determining compensation for CAL FIRE's uniformed classifications, it is the state’s policy to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdictions, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons.
4. Requires the state to implement any increase in salary for BU 8 firefighters resulting from this bill’s provisions through an MOU negotiated pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act (Chapter 10.3 (commencing with Section 3512) of Division 4 of Title 1).
5. Provides that if this bill’s provisions and an MOU conflict, the MOU shall control without further legislative action except that if the MOU’s provisions require the expenditure of funds, the provision shall not become effective unless approved by the Legislature and the annual Budget Act.
6. Makes related findings and declarations.

COMMENTS

1. Need for this bill?

According to the author, CAL FIRE firefighters are overworked and severely underpaid compared to their counterparts in local agencies, working 72 hour workweek compared to 54 hour work weeks for local fire departments. This bill would allow state firefighters to have a reasonable, competitive salary.

2. Conflict Notice: This bill and AB 1677 (McKinnor) contain statutory references that are in conflict should both bills become enrolled. This bill creates a new section 19827.4 in the Government Code that AB 1677 (McKinnor) also uses for a different purpose (to establish a salary schedule study related to Bargaining Unit 10 for state scientists). The committee recommends that either this bill or AB 1677 be amended to use instead a new section 198727.6. to avoid the conflict. Because the existing preceding section 19827.3 references firefighters, it seems logical to retain 199827.4 in this bill and change the reference in AB 1677 to section 198727.6.

3. Proponent Arguments:

According to the California Professional Firefighters,

“AB 1254 will ensure that the full-time professional firefighters of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection are paid a wage that is within 15 % of the average salary of similar ranks averaged from 20 fire departments across California. The cross section of departments enumerated in the legislation cover a wide variety of departments from small to large cities as well as county departments and fire districts. Given the size of CAL FIRE’s workforce and the geographic diversity of the communities they serve, this approach provides the clearest picture of firefighter compensation across California to ensure fair and competitive wages.”

4. Opponent Arguments:

None received.

5. Related Legislation:

AB 1677 (McKinnor) would require the University of California (UC) at Berkeley Labor Center (UCB Labor Center) to undertake a study of the existing salary structure and provide recommendations for alternative models, if applicable, as applied to rank-and-file scientists in State Bargaining Unit 10 (BU 10), among other provisions. The bill is in the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Committee.

SUPPORT

CAL FIRE Local 2881 (Sponsor)

California Attorneys Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment

California Professional Firefighters

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1254

Author:(Flora)

As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires comparative pay for rank-and-file state Bargaining Unit (BU) 8 firefighters employed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) similar to those of certain other California fire departments.

Major Provisions

1. Towards recruiting and retaining the highest qualified and skilled firefighters for CAL FIRE, require the state to pay rank-and-file BU 8 firefighters within 15% of the average salary for corresponding ranks in the following 20 California fire departments, as agreed to by state BU 8 and the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) in 2017:
2. The cities of Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Corona, Escondido, Fullerton, Hayward, Milpitas, Ontario, Oxnard, Rialto, Roseville, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Monica, Stockton, Torrance, and Ventura;
3. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department;
4. The Novato Fire District; and,
5. The County of Los Angeles.
6. Require the state and the exclusive representative for BU 8 to jointly survey and calculate estimated average salaries of the immediately aforementioned departments based on the projected average total salary for those departments as of July 1 of the year in which the survey is conducted.
7. Establish that it is the policy of the state to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdiction, as specified, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons, when determining compensation for CAL FIRE's uniformed classifications.
8. Provide that any increase in salary for BU 8 firefighters, as specified, resulting from these provisions must be implemented through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) pursuant to the Dills Act, and establishes that if these provisions are in conflict with those in a MOU, the MOU must be controlling without further legislative action, except if the MOU requires the expenditure of funds, then the provision must not become effective unless approved by the Legislature by the Legislature and the Annual Budget Act.
9. Include uncodified legislative findings and declarations for these purposes.

COMMENTS

1. Subjects Within Collective Bargaining and the Scope of Representation Under the Dills Act

Generally, the subjects of collective bargaining and the scope of representation under each of the state's various collective bargaining statutes cover "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment."

The subject of "wages" under the scope is relatively self-explanatory. Generally, this refers to pay, salary, compensation, or remuneration for official work performed by the employee for, or on behalf of, the employer. The subject of "hours" under the scope also is relatively self-explanatory. Generally, this refers to the hours in which an employee works to perform official work for, or on behalf of, the employer. However, the category of "other terms of conditions of employment" is not as readily self-explanatory. Here, "terms and conditions of employment" acts similarly as a category of "other" when compared to the specific categories of "hours" and "wages." It is not specifically defined, but has been interpreted to include, among other things, health and welfare benefits, vehicle transportation expenses, transfer and reassignment, and organizational security matters, as examples.

Overall, the Public Employment Relations Board has interpreted the Dills Act's scope of representation which has resulted in what is largely a well-settled rule. That is, subjects are within the scope of bargaining "if they involve the employment relationship and are of such concern to both management and employees that conflict is likely to occur, and if the mediatory influence of collective negotiation is an appropriate means of resolving the conflict." However, decisions that concern "essential managerial prerogatives" are not within the scope of representation under the (Dills) Act."

1. State BU 8 (Firefighters): Fiscal Analyses by the Legislative Analyst's Office

On August 16, 2021, the California Department of Finance submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, a labor agreement between the administration and state BU 8 (Firefighters). At that time, the MOU proposed a 2.5% general salary increase for all state BU 8 members, and a 2.62% pay increase for specified classifications of state BU 8 for the term of the agreement.

Existing law requires the CalHR to take into consideration the compensation provided by jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California. A total compensation study released by the CalHR in January 2021, considered 20 local jurisdictions, including cities, counties, and fire districts, and compared several classifications with local counterparts.

In its review of the state BU 8 MOU at that time, the analysis by the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) noted that the: (i) survey compares state firefighter compensation with local government firefighters; (ii) survey identified significant lag in state compensation relative to local governments; and, (iii) study did not include federal firefighters. As to the lag in state compensation relative to local governments, the analysis by the LAO states that, "[w]hen comparing employer total compensation costs (salary plus benefits), the CalHR compensation study found that BU 8 firefighters are compensated, on average, 24% less than comparable classifications employed by the 20 local governments," and that, "[t]he severity of the lag in BU 8 compensation varies by classification."

In the proposed MOU between the administration and state BU 8 (effective July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2024), state BU 8 members would be given over the duration of the agreement, a 2.5% general salary increase (effective July 1, 2022); a 2.5% general salary increase (effective January 1, 2023); and, a 2% general salary increase (effective July 1, 2023), which in total, compounds to a 6.6% pay increase over the two years of the agreement.

In its review of this proposed MOU, the LAO noted, among other things, that the compensation study released in January 2021, uses 2020 data as agreed to by both state BU 8 and the CalHR. However, the LAO noted again that, "CalHR compensation study finds state firefighter compensation lags behind local governments," and that, "[t]he study relies on a simple average of the compensation earned by firefighters in [local] jurisdictions and that state compensation lags the 20 local jurisdictions by 24%…," and "… does not include federal firefighters in its analysis."

1. This Bill

This bill proposes statutory requirements relating to the wages of specified state BU 8 firefighters, which is a subject of collective bargaining under the Dills Act, and thusly, normally confined to that domain for resolution and sans legislative intrusion.

Because this bill may provide some wage parity, it may achieve the goals articulated in its uncodified legislative findings and declarations regarding recruitment to assist CAL FIRE with meeting the needs of the state during what has consistently and increasingly become annual statewide fire seasons. Moreover, because this bill may provide some wage parity, it also may provide for increased recruitment and retention of state BU 8 CAL FIRE firefighters against cannibalization of, or competition for, its firefighting personnel by other fire department jurisdictions that offer higher compensation; thereby, being consistent with the uncodified legislative findings and declarations towards meeting the public safety needs of the state.

1. Equity Solutions and Maximizing Benefits for Underserved and Marginalized Communities

Pursuant to House Resolution (HR) 39 (Gipson, 2021), to continue the Assembly's commitment to investing in equity solutions and maximizing benefits for underserved and marginalized communities, legislative analyses of the Assembly must discuss the equity impact that a bill will, or may, have on such communities, if any.

This bill does not present a particular focus towards addressing equity in relation to maximizing benefits for underserved or marginalized communities as articulated in HR 39. However, under a broader context beyond HR 39 stipulations, this bill seeks to achieve wage parity for the specified state BU 8 firefighters in comparison to firefighters in certain other California jurisdictions.

1. Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

According to the Author

"In an effort to pay CAL FIRE firefighters a more reasonable and competitive wage, this bill seeks to bring parity and appropriate compensation for state firefighters"

Arguments in Support

The California Professional Firefighters state in part, "[f]or years however, the wages for CAL FIRE's all risk firefighters have lagged significantly behind what is offered in municipal and county departments, devaluing the critical work done by these professionals and making it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain firefighters where they are desperately needed. Short staffing only compounds the dangers inherent to this work through exhaustion and critical stress, but also presents long-term health impacts from extended exposure to toxic smoke with no respiratory protection as well as the negative repercussions for behavioral health from lack of sleep, overwork, and months on end spent away from family. In order to retain the skilled and trained firefighters that are so desperately needed at safe levels it is imperative that wages are commensurate with the critically important work that they perform.

"[This bill] will ensure that the full-time professional firefighters of the [CAL FIRE] are paid a wage that is within 15% of the average salary of similar ranks averaged from 20 fire departments across California. The cross section of departments enumerated in this legislation cover a wide variety of departments from small to large cities as well as county departments and fire districts. Given the size of CAL FIRE's workforce and the geographic diversity of the communities they serve, this approach provides the clearest picture of firefighter compensation across California to ensure fair and competitive wages."

Arguments in Opposition

None.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill would result in ongoing General Fund costs, of an unknown but likely significant amount, to CAL FIRE to provide pay comparative to local fire departments to BU 8 firefighters.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT: 7-0-0

YES: McKinnor, Lackey, Addis, Vince Fong, Haney, Stephanie Nguyen, Schiavo

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Sanchez, Weber, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: February 16, 2023

CONSULTANT: Michael Bolden / P. E. & R. / (916) 319-3957 FN: 0000512

Date of Hearing: May 3, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1254

Author:(Flora) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires comparative pay for rank-and-file state Bargaining Unit (BU) 8 firefighters employed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) similar to those of other local fire departments.

Specifically, this bill requires the state to pay firefighters who are rank-and-file members of BU 8 within 15% of the average of the salary for corresponding ranks in 20 specified local fire departments. The bill requires the state and the exclusive representative for BU 8 to jointly survey annually and calculate the estimated average salaries of the 20 departments. The bill also specifies that any increase in salary for firefighters who are members of BU 8 resulting from this bill are to be implemented through a memorandum of understanding (MOU).

FISCAL EFFECT:

Ongoing General Fund costs, of an unknown but likely significant amount, to CAL FIRE to provide pay comparative to local fire departments to BU 8 firefighters.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the California Professional Firefights, a supporter of this bill:

The wages for CAL FIRE’s all risk firefighters have lagged significantly behind what is offered in municipal and county departments, devaluing the critical work done by these professionals and making it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain firefighters where they are desperately needed. Short staffing only compounds the dangers inherent to this work through exhaustion and critical stress, but also presents long-term health impacts from extended exposure to toxic smoke with no respiratory protection as well as the negative repercussions for behavioral health from lack of sleep, overwork, and months on end spent away from family. In order to retain the skilled and trained firefighters that are so desperately needed at safe levels it is imperative that wages are commensurate with the critically important work that they perform.

1. Background. Existing law requires the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR), when determining compensation for state firefighters, to take into consideration the compensation provided by jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California.

On August 16, 2021, the California Department of Finance submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee a labor agreement between the administration and state BU 8 (Firefighters). The MOU proposed a 2.5% general salary increase for all state BU 8 members, effective July 1, 2022; a 2.5% general salary increase effective January 1, 2023; and a 2% general salary increase effective July 1, 2023. These increases compound to 6.6% over the two years of the agreement. However, in its review of the state BU 8 MOU at the time, the Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that, when compared to firefighters at 20 local fire departments, BU 8 firefighters are compensated, on average, 24% less.

While wages are typically a subject of collective bargaining in the case of state firefighters, this bill requires that BU 8 firefighters be paid within 15% of the average of the salary for corresponding ranks at 20 local fire departments. According to the author, “The cross section of departments enumerated in this legislation cover a wide variety of departments from small to large cities as well as county departments and fire districts.”

Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 12, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT

Tina S. McKinnor, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1254 (

Author:Flora) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2023

SUBJECT: State employees: compensation: firefighters

SUMMARY: Requires comparative pay for rank-and-file state Bargaining Unit (BU) 8 firefighters employed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) similar to those of other California fire departments, as specified, and among other provisions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Towards recruiting and retaining the highest qualified and skilled firefighters for CAL FIRE, requires the state to pay rank-and-file BU 8 firefighters within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks in the following 20 California fire departments, as agreed to by state BU 8 and the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) in 2017:
2. The cities of Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Corona, Escondido, Fullerton, Hayward, Milpitas, Ontario, Oxnard, Rialto, Roseville, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Monica, Stockton, Torrance, and Ventura;
3. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department;
4. The Novato Fire District; and,
5. The County of Los Angeles.
6. Requires the state and the exclusive representative for BU 8 to jointly survey and calculate estimated average salaries of the immediately aforementioned departments based on the projected average total salary for those departments as of July 1 of the year in which the survey is conducted.
7. Establishes that it is the policy of the state to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdiction, as specified, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons, when determining compensation for CAL FIRE’s uniformed classifications.
8. Provides that any increase in salary for BU 8 firefighters, as specified, resulting from these provisions must be implemented through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) pursuant to the Dills Act, and establishes that if these provisions are in conflict with those in a MOU, the MOU must be controlling without further legislative action, except if the MOU requires the expenditure of funds, then the provision must not become effective unless approved by the Legislature by the Legislature and the Annual Budget Act.
9. Includes uncodified legislative findings and declarations for these purposes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides and establishes that, in order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for CAL FIRE, it is the policy of the state to consider prevailing salaries and benefits prior to making salary recommendations. In addition, to provide for comparability in pay, the CalHR must take into consideration the salary and benefits of jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California.^[1]
2. Requires the CalHR to post, in a clear and conspicuous manner on its internet website, each MOU that has been submitted to the Legislature for determination, as provided, and that has been ratified by the affected union membership, among other provisions.^[2]
3. Governs collective bargaining in the private sector under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) but leaves to the states the regulation of collective bargaining in their respective public sectors. While the NLRA and the decisions of its National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) often provide persuasive precedent in interpreting state collective bargaining law, public employees generally have no collective bargaining rights absent specific statutory authority establishing those rights.^[3]
4. Provides several statutory frameworks under California law to provide public employees collective bargaining rights, govern public employer-employee relations, and limit labor strife and economic disruption in the public sector through a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment between public employers and recognized public employee organizations or their exclusive representatives. These include the Ralph C. Dills Act, commonly referred to as the “Dills Act,” which provides collective bargaining for state employees of the executive branch and establishes a process for determining wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for represented employees.^[4]
5. Requires the Governor and the recognized state employee organizations to meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if they reach an agreement, to jointly prepare a written memorandum of understanding (MOU), which the Governor shall present, when appropriate, to the Legislature for determination.^[5]
6. Establishes the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial administrative agency, charged with administering the several statewide collective bargaining statutes covering public employees including school, college, state, local agency, and trial court employees.^[6]
7. Provides for the payment of compensation and specified state employees through the annual Budget Act.^[7]
8. Recognizes the historic problem of recruitment and retention of peace officers of the Department of Corrections and Department of Youth Authority; the trend in recent years to improve salaries and benefits for correctional peace officers; the need to fill vacancies to recruit and retain such officers; provide for compatibility of pay with large peace officer employers, and that salaries must be improved and maintained by the state for officers in the Departments of Corrections and Youth Authority, respectively. In addition, the department is required to take into consideration the salary and benefits of other large employers of peace officers in California.^[8]
9. Requires after completion of the first year in a position, each employee must receive a merit salary adjustment equal to one of the intermediate steps during each year when the employee meets the standards of efficiency as the department must prescribe by rule, and includes provisions relating to the supremacy of a Dills Act MOU if the provisions of the statute are in conflict with those in a MOU.^[9]

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is flagged as fiscal by Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS: According to the author, “[i]n an effort to pay CAL FIRE firefighters a more reasonable and competitive wage, this bill seeks to bring parity and appropriate compensation for state firefighters”

1. Brief Background Regarding the Eponymous Dills Act

Resulting from legislative efforts during the 1970s to enact a single and comprehensive statute that would cover all public employees in California, proponents of collective bargaining for state employees were successful when former Senator Ralph C. Dills introduced a measure (i.e., the “Dills Act”), backed by the California State Employees Association, that was passed in 1977 and signed into law by former Governor Edmund “Jerry” G. Brown, Jr. in July1978.

1. The Purposes and Core Mechanics of Public Employee Collective Bargaining

The core purpose (and principle) of the Dills Act (and the several other various statewide collective bargaining frameworks) is to limit labor strife and economic disruption in the public sector through a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment between public employers and their employees or their exclusive representatives.

The core mechanics of collective bargaining are twofold: a) Each party must give up something to get something else in return to, b) achieve the manifestation of the art of compromise represented by a written and signed agreement that is formally executed as a MOU. Thus, achieving the agreement (i.e., contract) is identical to the common law principles of the formation of a contract (i.e., offer, acceptance, and exchange of consideration).

Here, to achieve an agreement assumes that the collective bargaining process and negotiation strategy or tactics used by both parties (i.e., employer and union) are in good faith and not to reach an impasse, nor the employer driving negotiations in a manner ultimately to be able to unilaterally implement (also commonly referred to by labor unions, as “impose”) what might be considered by the union as an unfair or objectionable contract.

1. Subjects Within Collective Bargaining and the Scope of Representation Under the Dills Act

Generally, the subjects of collective bargaining and the scope of representation under each of the state’s various collective bargaining statutes cover “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.”

The subject of “wages” under the scope is relatively self-explanatory. Generally, this refers to pay, salary, compensation, or remuneration for official work performed by the employee for, or on behalf of, the employer. The subject of “hours” under the scope also is relatively self-explanatory. Generally, this refers to the hours in which an employee works to perform official work for, or on behalf of, the employer. However, the category of “other terms of conditions of employment” is not as readily self-explanatory. Here, “terms and conditions of employment” acts similarly as a category of “other” when compared to the specific categories of “hours” and “wages.” It is not specifically defined, but has been interpreted to include, among other things, health and welfare benefits, vehicle transportation expenses, transfer and reassignment, and organizational security matters, as examples.

Overall, the PERB has interpreted the Dills Act’s scope of representation which has resulted in what is largely a well-settled rule. That is, subjects are within the scope of bargaining “if they involve the employment relationship and are of such concern to both management and employees that conflict is likely to occur, and if the mediatory influence of collective negotiation is an appropriate means of resolving the conflict.”^[10] However, decisions that concern “essential managerial prerogatives” are not within the scope of representation under the (Dills) Act.”

1. State BU 8 (Firefighters) Fiscal Analyses by the Legislative Analyst’s Office

On August 16, 2021, the California Department of Finance submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, a labor agreement between the administration and state BU 8 (Firefighters). At that time, the MOU proposed a 2.5 percent general salary increase for all state BU 8 members, and a 2.62 percent pay increase for specified classifications of state BU 8 for the term of the agreement.

Existing law, as previously mentioned, requires the CalHR to take into consideration the compensation provided by jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California.^[11] A total compensation study released by the CalHR in January 2021, considered 20 local jurisdictions, including cities, counties, and fire districts, and compared several classifications with local counterparts.^[12]

In its review of the state BU 8 MOU at that time, the analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) noted that the: (i) survey compares state firefighter compensation with local government firefighters; (ii) survey identified significant lag in state compensation relative to local governments; and, (iii) study did not include federal firefighters. As to the lag in state compensation relative to local governments, the analysis by the LAO states that, “[w]hen comparing employer total compensation costs (salary plus benefits), the CalHR compensation study found that BU 8 firefighters are compensated, on average, 24 percent less than comparable classifications employed by the 20 local governments,” and that, “[t]he severity of the lag in BU 8 compensation varies by classification.”^[13]

In the proposed MOU between the administration and state BU 8 (effective July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2024), state BU 8 members would be given over the duration of the agreement, a 2.5 percent general salary increase (effective July 1, 2022); a 2.5 percent general salary increase (effective January 1, 2023); and, a 2 percent general salary increase (effective July 1, 2023), which in total, compounds to a 6.6 percent pay increase over the two years of the agreement.

In its review of this proposed MOU, the LAO noted, among other things, that the compensation study released in January 2021,^[14] uses 2020 data as agreed to by both state BU 8 and the CalHR. However, the LAO noted again that, “CalHR compensation study finds state firefighter compensation lags behind local governments,” and that, “[t]he study relies on a simple average of the compensation earned by firefighters in [local] jurisdictions and that state compensation lags the 20 local jurisdictions by 24 percent…,” and “… does not include federal firefighters in its analysis.”^[15]

1. This Bill

This bill proposes statutory requirements relating to the wages of specified state BU 8 firefighters, which is a subject of collective bargaining under the Dills Act,^[16] and thusly, normally confined to that domain for resolution and sans legislative intrusion.

Because this bill may provide some wage parity, it may achieve the goals articulated in its uncodified legislative findings and declarations regarding recruitment to assist CAL FIRE with meeting the needs of the state during what has consistently and increasingly become annual statewide fire seasons. Moreover, because this bill may provide some wage parity, it also may provide for increased recruitment and retention of state BU 8 CAL FIRE firefighters against cannibalization of, or competition for, its firefighting personnel by other fire department jurisdictions that offer higher compensation; thereby, being consistent with the uncodified legislative findings and declarations towards meeting the public safety needs of the state.

1. Equity Solutions and Maximizing Benefits for Underserved and Marginalized Communities

Pursuant to House Resolution (HR) 39 (Gipson, 2021), to continue the Assembly’s commitment to investing in equity solutions and maximizing benefits for underserved and marginalized communities, legislative analyses of the Assembly must discuss the equity impact that a bill will, or may, have on such communities, if any.

This bill does not present a particular focus towards addressing equity in relation to maximizing benefits for underserved or marginalized communities as articulated in HR 39. However, under a broader context beyond HR 39 stipulations, this bill seeks to achieve wage parity for the specified state BU 8 firefighters in comparison to firefighters in certain other California jurisdictions.

1. Comments by Supporters

The California Professional Firefighters state in part, “[f]or years however, the wages for CAL FIRE’s all risk firefighters have lagged significantly behind what is offered in municipal and county departments, devaluing the critical work done by these professionals and making it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain firefighters where they are desperately needed. Short staffing only compounds the dangers inherent to this work through exhaustion and critical stress, but also presents long-term health impacts from extended exposure to toxic smoke with no respiratory protection as well as the negative repercussions for behavioral health from lack of sleep, overwork, and months on end spent away from family. In order to retain the skilled and trained firefighters that are so desperately needed at safe levels it is imperative that wages are commensurate with the critically important work that they perform.

“[This bill] will ensure that the full-time professional firefighters of the [CAL FIRE] are paid a wage that is within 15 percent of the average salary of similar ranks averaged from 20 fire departments across California. The cross section of departments enumerated in this legislation cover a wide variety of departments from small to large cities as well as county departments and fire districts. Given the size of CAL FIRE’s workforce and the geographic diversity of the communities they serve, this approach provides the clearest picture of firefighter compensation across California to ensure fair and competitive wages.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Professional Firefighters

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Michael Bolden / P. E. & R. / (916) 319-3957

1. Section 19827.3 of the Government (Gov.) Code. ↑

2. Section 19829.6 of the Gov. Code. ↑

3. Sections 151 et seq., Title 29, United States Code. ↑

4. Sections 3512 et seq. of the Gov. Code. ↑

5. Sections 3517 et seq. of the Gov. Code. ↑

6. Sections 3541 et seq. of the Gov. Code. ↑

7. Sections 19829.7 et seq. of the Gov. Code. ↑

8. Section 19827.1 of the Gov. Code. ↑

9. Section 19832 of the Gov. Code. ↑

10. California State Employees Assn. v. State of California (Dept. of Transportation) (1983) PERB No. 361-S. ↑

11. Ref. fn 1. ↑

12. “2020 California Firefighter Total Compensation Survey,” CalHR. January 2021. ↑

13. “MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 8 (Firefighters).” LAO, September 7, 2021. ↑

14. Ref. fn 13. ↑

15. “MOU Fiscal Analysis, Bargaining Unit 8 (Firefighters).” LAO, August 26, 2022. ↑

16. Section 3516 of the Gov. Code. ↑